Hey Clockwork, apology accepted and no hard feelings. One of my favorite quotes is from an atheist, actually -

"Any doctrine which will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man."

I have examined my faith pretty closely, even those "hard passages" from the OT where God comes across sounding pretty bloodthirsty. They are more understandable if you know a little bit about the cultures the Israelites were conquering. I will explain if anyone wants me to, however, I think tempers have flared badly enough on this issue for now. But my point is this - I didn't turn my brain off when I became a Christian. I have examined and continue to examine the claims of Scripture pretty closely, and for me it still makes sense. I'm sorry it doesn't for you, but I wish you happiness and peace nonetheless.

I still think this is a great thread, and I'll say this much -

America has obviously not abolished freedom of speech yet!!!

(i'm not a beer drinker, but after doing yard work all day, I'll think of you when I drain that next glass of iced tea!)

Wow! Good thing I read this thread first before trying another one: "Free speech abolished in Colorado." (It was severely curtailed, anyway. I trust you guys know some political sites for yourselves that can give you the details.)

Granted, any site named "Real Clear Politics" is probably a little suspect, so I'm not 100% convinced that this is actually happening, but as I said, I wouldn't be overly suprised if it was.

This article was hardly the only one on the subject. As you can see if you check the root URL for that site, Real Clear Politics is sort of a political free-for-all site, a slightly more interactive version of the Drudge Report. I chose this article because some people would be more likely to read it there than if it were on Townhall.com, or WorldNetDaily.com, or Newsmax.com, etc. I probably could have posted another rather disturbing article from the New York Times criticizing the U.S. for not having as many repressive speech codes as the rest of the world, but that article said very little about Canada's most recent infringements.

One could justifiably make the argument that we in the US don't have "Free Speech" either. Even if you throw out the social phenomenon of "Political Correctness" and the instances where that has been codified (Hate Speech), there are very real, freedom limiting powers of the Federal Government in place.

Specifically, I refer to Executive Order E.O. 10995 issued by Kennedy. This order, never rescinded by a subsequent President, allows the president to take control of all media during a declared national emergency. It can be argued that this includes all media: radio, television telephone and Internet.

The scary part of this is that "national emergency" as defined here is declared by the President (per the 1933 War and Emergency Powers Act), and has never been precisely defined by the courts.

Be careful who you put in the Office of the President of the United States. It would make your blood run cold to know the things "they" can control quasi-legally by simply declaring "National Emergency." And to make that declaration, the President does not have to justify it to ANYONE.

I'm at the point that I see all our freedoms as suspect. If we only have any given freedom or set of freedoms at the "mercy" of the Government, they aren't really freedoms are they?

What you say is true, but the President does have one restraint on him that these kangaroo courts in Canada don't: he still has to convince people there's a real emergency if he wants to seize control. Hollywood always likes to show the big bad villain in its dystopian films declaring martial law and seizing everything in one stroke, which is what an emergency order would be like, but most of the losses of freedom in the real world have been piece by piece.

If McCain or Obama were to declare Global Warming a national emergency and start seizing power, you can bet there'd be people screaming for impeachment within the hour and a bloody revolt within the week. The effective way to oppress us is the way it's already being done: with a steady stream of seemingly minor restrictions and the approval of a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court. Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts arose by just such a process.

So pay attention to your other elected officials as well. And beware of anyone who talks about "human rights" without specifying just exactly what kind of "rights" he means. The Constitution doesn't include any "right" not to be offended... yet.

Ok I've read the entire thread ... I don't need a beer I need a Makers and Coke.

The thread seems to have come to a agreeable stop so I'm not going to go through it and state point by point, I think the arguments have been made, replied to and made again in a generally mature and respectable way ... we all digress at times.

(i'm not a beer drinker, but after doing yard work all day, I'll think of you when I drain that next glass of iced tea!)

I'll translate ... "I'm Baptist and if I drink alcohol it could lead to dancing which could lead to spooning, which could lead to ugly bumping which could lead to strip clubs and back room gambling which would lead to more drinking." and the cycle is complete. Of course that's a loose translation.

Dangit, Cheeze, I've held my tongue long enough. A man can have whatever political and religious beliefs he wants, that's none of my concern. That's the essence of free speech, or most treasured right.

But when a man adds COCA COLA to his BOURBON... well, that crosses a line. That's BLASPHEMY, and an ABOMINATION.

(Just kidding. My dad adds coke to his bourbon. Kinda gross to me, though. I like it over ice.)

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

Yeah, I've always felt there are liquors you mix and liquors you don't. Rye, vodka, rum, schnapps, gin, etc. are all fine to mix, while bourbon, scotch, brandy and the like are meant to be enjoyed on their own, maybe over ice. But hey, if it tastes good, do it. That bourbon and coke does look delicious.

Where I come from, rye and coke is pretty much king, if you don't count beer. For me, mixing a good whiskey or rum with a sweet cola almost has a candy-like flavour. Very yummy. Also quite fond of Southern Comfort and ginger ale, and vodka tonics.

Alas, with the exception of maybe Christmas, I am a virtual teetotaler these days.

Dangit, Cheeze, I've held my tongue long enough. A man can have whatever political and religious beliefs he wants, that's none of my concern. That's the essence of free speech, or most treasured right.

But when a man adds COCA COLA to his BOURBON... well, that crosses a line. That's BLASPHEMY, and an ABOMINATION.

(Just kidding. My dad adds coke to his bourbon. Kinda gross to me, though. I like it over ice.)

I know, I know ... I bounces between the rocks and with coke, depending on my mood.Now there are a few scotches that I'll only do straight or on the rocks like Springbank or Bruichladdich. I finally got my paws on a bottle of Ladyburn Scotch the other day, never had it before it's rather hard to come by.